Forum

Status Quo Entrenchments / Goal *LINK*
In Response To: Pope and Ellis ()

>CP: Ralph and I actually have something in common. Both of us were initially inspired by the books of Ahmed Osman. Also, Ralph is a airline pilot. I am an engineer working in the field of flight simulation and training!

-M: OK. I like the field of aviation, too.

>CP: I've read some of Ralph's books, not all. Most recently I read Solomon Falcon of Sheba. If I had not developed my own model of the time period he covers I would probably be quite pleased with what he offers. Unfortunately our models are quite mutually exclusive.

-M: See, so who is right(er)?

>CP: I still admire him and his work. I don't feel a strong competitiveness with other alternative researchers, because I don't see much liklihood that my model will be generally accepted in my lifetime if at all.

-M: Whatever the truth is, will eventually be accepted.

>CP: For that reason I prefer for now to keep the work on the web in a more or less "liquid" form.

-M: ROCK'n! This format does quite a service. :-)

>CP: It would be gratifying to formally publish, but the feedback I get from readers (directly or by their silence) is that the public and my model are both not yet ready for it.

-M: Tight arguements in a competivite format will MAKE THEM ready:
"Everyone look, we have OUR OWN peer-review structure, and unlike our establishment counterparts, we encourage the challenging of status-quo opinions."

>CP: By the way, Graham Hancock has just published a short article defending independent/alternative research featured today at The Daily Grail: http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/HoltorfC1.php
He has shown genuine leadership in ancient studies. His website is very open and he regularly encourages other fledgling authors.

-M: Cool. I first got interested in Osman via Hancock. And I got interested in you and Ellis through your association with Osman.

>CP: I certainly understand your frustration in not knowing how to evaluate the merit of various authors. I don't have a solution.

-M: I do have a solution.

>CP: It only takes time and money I suppose. Most independent types, myself included, would be leary of the approach you suggest. It sounds too idealistic...

-M:
-----------------------------------
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Main Entry: idealism [...]
2 a : the practice of forming ideals or living under their influence
[...]
--------------------------------

-M: I am idealistic. Weren't +99% of all figures who have made significant positive changes in the world idealistic?

>CP:...and probably would not result in much helpful feedback to authors in practice. We can barely put out something of value much less help others.

-M: The editorial process that I envision would not be *helping* as much as it would be *describing* the similarity and differences between authors and their competing models. I am sure that you do this mentally already.

It seems to me that the GOAL is to *challenge status-quo entrenchments*

-Strong arguements concerning irrelevant material won't work.
-Weak arguements concerning relevant material won't work.
-Even strong arguements concerning relevant material won't work unless others can be convinced that the material is both strong and relevant.

This is why I propose a strong peer-review structure. This isn't *partnering*, it is a *format*.

>CP: Since I did not find a true partner, I prefer to just read what other people publish and then incorporate anything useful into my knowledge base. I occasionally get an insight from someone who posts on my web site, but more often a good question from a reader will trigger a new insight after I think about how to answer them.

-M: So, in a way, you are the peer-review structure for your readers. I am sure that you have every intent to be fair and objective, but there are others like you who feel the same way, and have very different models and approaches. So again, who is right(er), and how would this be best determined?

I have been interested in forming a religious order in my spiritual tradition (as opposed to forming a spiritual order in a religious tradition) and would like a historic model to give a contextual framework to the evolution of my order and competing traditions.

There are many intelligent people in my tradition, so I need every point to be coherent with every other point of the model, and for all points to have plausability past a 50% confidence threshhold.

So how does your model differ with Rohl? Osman? Who is your favorite?

shanti
Mark, Seattle

Responses To This Message

Editing Verses Peer Review